9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods without paying duty during the period from 1-4-1985 to 23-11-1987, on the ostensible ground that the value of the clearance in each year in question was below the limit of exemption prescribed in Notification No. 77/85 in force in the year 1985-86 and Notification No. 175/86 in force during the period 1986-88. Scrutiny of records and enquiry having shown that the value of clearances of excisable goods exceeded the limit of Rs. 20 lakhs in 1985-86 and of Rs. 15 lakhs in the succeeding years, show cause notice dated 8-9-1988 was issued by the Additional Collector referring to the above facts and alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade duty and invoking the larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the objected item cannot be included in the assessable value for qualification of duty and the only excisable goods manufactured by the appellant were parts of plants and machinery cleared at the factory and on such goods full duty has been paid. 4. Shri R.D. Negi, SDR tried to rebut the above contentions. He pointed out that the Additional Collector has arrived at the conclusion that the plants or machinery which came into existence at the sites of the buyers were marketable goods and hence excisable and supported this conclusion. 5. It is true that the Additional Collector held that the plants and machinery which came into existence at the premises of the buyers must be regarded as marketable excisable goods; however, in arriving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or" in the proviso comprehends also "Additional Collector" who would have jurisdiction to act under the proviso. To similar effect is the decision of Tribunal in Nettur Technical Training Foundation - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 225 (T) = 1990 (29) ECR 558 (T). This contention therefore has no substance. 7. It is further contended that technical consultancy charges collected by the appellant had nothing to do with the activity of manufacture either of parts or of plant manufactured in the factory or which came into existence at the site but has relation only to maintenance of the plant and therefore cannot be included in the assessable value of the plant, even if the whole plant is to be regarded as excisable goods. This contention has not been spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
